4 ms·

I think the strongest argument against this is that addressing most of the substantive concerns requires compelling speech. Separately, I think we should get b

I think the strongest argument against this is that addressing most of the substantive concerns requires compelling speech. Separately, I think we should get big tech out of the business of acting as the public commons, but I don't think forcing them to apply promotion and editorial decisions without regard for the content itself is a good idea. We could force them to stop doing all promoting and editing, which would kill the platforms (good! I'm OK with that!) but that doesn't seem to be what these folks want. They already have that in the form of email, and they don't seem to think it's sufficient.

AlexandrB 3y ago
Not just email, but there are alternative platforms that are more permissive of alternative opinions - Truth social, Rumble, Odysee, Telegram. So what's the ask? It seems to be not just freedom of expression, but reach of expression. To reference a provided example, the civil rights movement certainly benefited from freedom of speech, but at no point were mainstream media outlets compelled to publish opinions by civil rights leaders. While I'm pretty ignorant of the history, I'm sure the civil rights movement was largely organized and energized by alternative media - zines, newsletters and the like - and not by ABC news.
motohagiography 3y ago
This idea of whether platforms should be a commons is interesting because it's an artifact of the early internet "common carrier" designation for ISPs, and then the platforms got section 230 in the communications decency act. The idea becomes important again when people defect from the platforms and just start using new protocols. Right now, I'd agree from a free speech perspective that the platforms are publishers and if they are going to censor unpopular or controversial views, they should also be liable for the illegal content on their sites. If they aren't liable for it, then they can't censor anything more than bots without risking that liability. Imo, the next big argument will likely be whether there is a difference between a platform and a protocol as well.

AlexandrB 3y ago

Not just email, but there are alternative platforms that are more permissive of alternative opinions - Truth social, Rumble, Odysee, Telegram. So what's the ask? It seems to be not just freedom of expression, but reach of expression. To reference a provided example, the civil rights movement certainly benefited from freedom of speech, but at no point were mainstream media outlets compelled to publish opinions by civil rights leaders. While I'm pretty ignorant of the history, I'm sure the civil rights movement was largely organized and energized by alternative media - zines, newsletters and the like - and not by ABC news.

motohagiography 3y ago

This idea of whether platforms should be a commons is interesting because it's an artifact of the early internet "common carrier" designation for ISPs, and then the platforms got section 230 in the communications decency act. The idea becomes important again when people defect from the platforms and just start using new protocols. Right now, I'd agree from a free speech perspective that the platforms are publishers and if they are going to censor unpopular or controversial views, they should also be liable for the illegal content on their sites. If they aren't liable for it, then they can't censor anything more than bots without risking that liability. Imo, the next big argument will likely be whether there is a difference between a platform and a protocol as well.